Montague v. Mial

• Decision Date: 31 October 1883
• Citation: 89 N.C. 137
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: H. W. MONTAGUE v. A. T. MIAL.

89 N.C. 137

H. W. MONTAGUE

v.A. T. MIAL.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October Term, 1883.

CIVIL ACTION tried at June Term, 1883, of WAKE Superior Court, before Philips, J.

Judgment for the plaintiff; appeal by the defendant.

Mr. Armistead Jones, for plaintiff .

Mr. J. B. Batchelor, for defendant .

SMITH, C. J.

Early in the year 1877, the plaintiff leased a tract of land belonging to him for the residue of the year to John Hinton, who contracted, as the rent therefor, to deliver to his lessor one thousand pounds of lint cotton. The lessee, soon after, sub-let a portion of the premises for the same period to George W. Faribault, for a rent to be paid of five hundred pounds of cotton of the same kind. In November, with the consent of Hinton and for the purpose of discharging his obligation, Faribault carried a lot of cotton from the rented land to the defendant's gin, where it was picked and packed, and put in a bale weighing five hundred and thirteen pounds, from which Hinton was to have enough to pay his rent.

Subsequently, as the defendant testifies, and, for the purpose of passing on the ruling of the court brought up for review, we assume to be true, though it is denied by Faribault the defendant sold the bale and appropriated the proceeds to his own use in part payment of an indebtedness due him from Faribault, unconnected with the transaction.

The action is to recover the value of the cotton thus tortiously appropriated by the defendant, and, under instructions based upon the evidence, the jury found the several issues submitted to them in favor of the plaintiff, assessing his damages at $51.25, the value of the cotton.

The following propositions, maintained in the argument of the appellant's counsel, embody the subject matter of the exceptions presented in the record:

1. The superior court has no jurisdiction of the cause.

2. The defendant, not having participated in removing the crop from the land on which it was grown, is not liable to the plaintiff.

3. The lessor's lien under the statute adheres to crops cultivated by the lessee only, and does not extend to the crops of the sub-tenant.

These we proceed to consider, since either, if correct, disposes of the appeal.

I. Under the amended constitution (Art. IV, §27) authority is conferred upon the general assembly to give to justices of the peace jurisdiction of civil action “wherein the value of the property in controversy does not exceed fifty dollars.” This jurisdiction is conferred concurrently with that possessed by the superior court by an act passed at the session held in 1876-'77, ch. 251.

The summary and expeditious remedy provided in the act enacted at the same session (ch. 283) for recovering a removed crop subject to an unsatisfied lien for rent or other claim growing out of the lease, and for the adjustment of a dispute which may have...